Type ST Transport Scout: 199Td, J4/2G (LBB2 2nd Ed.)

[Grav_Moped]

Not a bad house rule, with some interesting implications there.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So one of the things you need to decide EP storage means is whether that is 250 MW seconds or 250 GW seconds. I assume the latter, with power plant ratings predicated on 250 MW constant per EP.



So what is the criteria for retention? I'd say it's implicit in the jump process- designed to take a full charge in the jump drive to initiate the jump.

Two turns worth of jump capacitor- I'd say your time limit is there, to avoid catastrophic capacitor detonation.

The proper interpretation is that the EP provided by Jump Capacitors will only last for 1 combat round when used ... so if 1 EP is 250 MW and a combat round is 1000 seconds ... then Jump Capacitors are 250 GW second batteries per ton.

Furthermore, there is no defined time limit to Jump Capacitor power retention. You can have a battle involving a Black Globe ship that lasts multiple hours (so 6+ combat turns) during which time the only way to reduce the EP stored in the Jump Capacitors is to use them to power the ship while the Black Globe is "off" (including flicker off). If there is no draining of the Jump Capacitors while the Black Globe is off, then the EP in them is simply retained ... indefinitely.

There is no rule in High Guard which says the EP shunted to the Jump Capacitors "automatically decays" after 2 combat rounds. To the contrary, it explicitly details that power is retained without losses until used (while the Black Globe is off). The explicit hazard is exceeding their capacity, not that they hemorrhage power rapidly if it isn't used quickly.

The big difference between Jump Capacitors and Powerplant capacity is that Jump Capacitors have a high energy density per ton for a short duration, while the Powerplant has a low energy density per ton for a long duration.

2 tons of Jump Capacitors = 72 EP for 1000 seconds (1 combat round) = 18 GW seconds
1 ton of TL=15 Powerplant plus 1 ton of fuel = 1 EP for 2,419,200 seconds (4 weeks) = 604,800 GW seconds

The Jump Capacitors are better at delivering "spike" power for short durations.
Fusion Powerplants are better at delivering "baseline" power for sustained long durations.
Feels like I've made this point before (and not been believed) ...

I've always treated Jump Capacitors as "battery power" that persists until used (hence one component of the 16 hours after jump engine maintenance and some recharging standard checks). On a ship without a Black Globe, you can (theoretically) charge up the Jump Capacitors and use those EPs to support power demand to weapons, engines, computer in the event of your remaining fuel being lost to combat damage (zero fuel usually means the Powerplant shuts down). The only limit to how fast you can drain EPs out of Jump Capacitors is the Powerplant (assuming it hasn't been damaged), because the power "bus" on the ship or boat has been designed for a maximum capacity of power that can be shunted across it at any given time.

So a Scout/Courier has 1 ton of Jump Capacitors, giving it a 36 EP combat rounds maximum reserve of power in the event of a Powerplant undamaged but Fuel empty condition (for example). Under those circumstances, the Maneuver drive will consume 1 EP per G of Maneuver per combat turn ... so you've basically got up to 36 combat rounds (10 hours) at 1G or 18 combat rounds (5 hours) at 2G before your capacity to Maneuver is exhausted ... assuming no damage to the Powerplant, merely a no fuel condition.

5-10 hours of Maneuver capacity isn't going to last anywhere near long enough for most stellar orbit transfer times, but could be enough for a planetary orbit transfer. It could be enough to avert a complete disaster, but might not be enough for a complete self-rescue. Still, better than nothing ... and if it's enough to get you into a "safe" orbit that will last long enough to effect a rescue, so long as you don't exhaust your EP reserves you'll still be able to keep life support running for a long time. If you're already in orbit around a gas giant or a planet with liquid oceans that you can refuel from, you could potentially recover from a "no fuel" condition where you have reserve power charged up in your ship's Jump Capacitors ... but the exercise could be a bit harrowing due to the limitations of your power reserves.

What you cannot do is say that a Scout/Courier has a Powerplant that generates 2 EP per combat turn, but you can use the EP stored in the Jump Capacitors to allow you to spend 3 EP per combat round (2 EP for Agility and 1 EP for a Laser, for example), granting access to a quantity of power per combat turn that exceeds the output capacity of the Powerplant. If you read the rules for Black Globe usage, the Rules As Written (RAW) explicitly forbid this kind of "Powerplant Plus" kind of outcome in a Black Globe context (and ships without a Black Globe simply operate as "100% off" as far as that goes).

Likewise, if your Powerplant is damaged in combat or by mishap/failure, that damage is going to reduce the amount of EP you can draw from the Jump Capacitors per combat round. A Scout/Courier that has had its Powerplant reduced from 2 to 1 (for whatever reason) can only draw 1 EP per combat round from its Jump Capacitors, not the usual 2 EP per combat round, due to the reduced capacity of the Powerplant (which in turn reduces the capacity of the "power bus" supplying all systems that consume EP aboard).

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Condottiere]

1. From my studies on the jump drive, there are three primary parts, the Overhead, the Core, and the Capacitors.

2. As far as I can tell, if you go by the Black Globes, the charge is permanent, and if not used by the jump drive for a transition, has to be siphoned off fractionally by a functioning power plant.

3. We know that the Capacitors go boom if they are overcharged.

4. What happens when they are breached?

5. If jump drives are damaged, would this occur, assuming there is no separate set built specifically for the Black Globe?

6. If there is a misjump, would this damage Capacitors, or cause a feedback?

7. Compared to actual batteries, the price difference is around forty to one, with the batteries unlikely to fail catastrophically, and can be used at your discretion.

 

[Spinward Flow]

4. What happens when they are breached?

5. If jump drives are damaged, would this occur, assuming there is no separate set built specifically for the Black Globe?

If the capacitors are "fully charged" (for whatever reason) and the jump drive is damaged (reducing the jump number) ... if the EP stored exceeds the capacity of the reduced jump number then ... BOOM. :xh:

6. If there is a misjump, would this damage Capacitors, or cause a feedback?

The greatest hazard of a misjump is winding up somewhere where there is no fuel (deep space hex) with empty fuel tanks. Without fuel and the means to obtain fuel, you're adrift ... and are likely to remain so longer than your life support can be sustained. :toast:

Per LBB2.81, a misjump amounts to an uncontrolled navigation error (of interstellar magnitude), rather than a "jump drive go boom" failure that results in a rebel princess saying "no lightspeed?" in utter disappointment.

A misjump is more likely to "damage" the remaining fuel capacity, rather than the drives themselves. A no fuel condition can be recovered from, but it is often times a rather harrowing disaster experience for a ship.

 

[Condottiere]

Using Mongosian sources, default Capacitors are two hundred fifty percent of maximum power storage for jump operations.

Plus one tonne in the five tonne Overhead.

 

[kilemall]

Spinward,you're entitled to think whatever you like. I'm out to solve a different problem then most here, having variable powered and rated weapons optimized to different ranges/cyclic rates such that short range Striker combats and long range fights with power allocation/tactical decisions can readily coexist.


I do think however that applying the rules the way you have them, batteries with no degradation, means all sorts of horrible power abuses are opened up.

Multiple shot ROF by spinal guns, or mounted on ships that don't have enough PP to power them normally, but can build up shots.

Jump capacitors charged up and ready to go at all times.

Fighter craft that don't carry fuel or PP, just charged from their mothership.

No heat from a power plant when the reactor is shut down and the ship is operating strictly on capacitors, thus a lot less IR signature.

Emergency power where the ship can fire everything AND use maximum agility/acceleration.

Not to mention what that does in the realm of smaller vehicle power if you make 1 cubic meter capacitors that retain charge and are toting 17.85 gigawatt-seconds.


Others I can think of, but you get the idea.


So, no shortcuts, least not in my universe.

If someone gets sly with the capacitors, I have a home rule in reserve that says they have to pay up an extra ten percent in power plant tonnage and cost to have the power distribution built in.

 

[Condottiere]

Going by the rules, you either use the power in the capacitors to power the jump drive, or you can drain them through a functioning power plant.

There isn't much of an advantage to be gained, compared to using actual batteries.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I do think however that applying the rules the way you have them, batteries with no degradation, means all sorts of horrible power abuses are opened up.

Which I already addressed with my examples, but sure, let's address your concerns (again).

Multiple shot ROF by spinal guns, or mounted on ships that don't have enough PP to power them normally, but can build up shots.

Explicitly prohibited by rules, coming and going.
Multi-shot spinal mounts are specifically addressed, they get one shot per combat round because they are a single battery and each battery can be fired once per round.

Each battery on a ship may fire once per turn

The rules also specifically forbid drawing more power from jump capacitors per turn than a power plant can generate normally.

Stored energy may be removed from the capacitors by using it to power the ship. Energy may only leave the ship, however, when the black globe is off (or during the off intervals of its flicker). During a turn, a ship may dispose of its energy from its capacitors equal to the number of points generated by its power plant, minus 10% for every 10% of flicker rate of the black globe screen. For example, if a ship's black globe screen is operating at 60% and its power plant has an output of 1000 EP, 400 EP may be removed from the ship's capacitors that turn.

So if a ship has a power plant output of 1000 EP per turn and its Black Globe is 100% off during the turn (because it doesn't have one!), then up to 1000 EP can be drawn from the jump capacitors that turn. However, the total "budget" of power available to computer, weapons, agility, etc. remains 1000 EP per turn. All you're doing is changing where the power "comes from" (the power plant or the capacitors).

You're not able to say you have 1000 EP at your disposal normally, but with power from capacitors you suddenly have 2000 EP that you can use during THIS combat round (1000+1000). The power distribution limit is still 1000 EP per combat round, because that's the power plant's output limit.

You want to think of the capacitors as being "backup power" stored in reserve, rather than being "power plus" that can be stacked on top of ordinary output.

Jump capacitors charged up and ready to go at all times.

True.
The only situation in which that is useful is if the jump drive and power plant are undamaged (so no loss in capacity for either one) and the power plant has no fuel (so generating 0 EP per combat round). In that circumstance, so long as your "Black Globe" is 100% off (which it will be if you don't have one!), you can use capacitors to replace up to 100% of power plant power output until the capacitors are drained of power. You don't get to use them to run your ship at 200% of power plant power during combat rounds.

I already detailed this situation and circumstance (my Scout/Courier example). It's useful in an empty fuel tanks situation, but offers no advantages at other times. It would however allow a ship to keep maneuvering and fire energy consuming weapons and power computers after losing all fuel in combat damage results, but you run the risk of catastrophic failure if the capacitors are charged up to full and the jump drive is damaged (reducing maximum capacity in the capacitors below their current charge level). :xh:

Fighter craft that don't carry fuel or PP, just charged from their mothership.

So a ship with Power Plant-0 generates 0 EP per combat round.
What is 100% of 0 EP per combat round?

I'll just wait patiently here while you calculate your answer.

No heat from a power plant when the reactor is shut down and the ship is operating strictly on capacitors, thus a lot less IR signature.

Oh gee bum ... whatever shall we do about that!

But seriously, in a universe with neutrino detectors used for detecting fusion power plants at long range ... I would fully expect military ships attempting sneak attacks to "run silent" on capacitor power temporarily in order to maneuver into position for surprise and/or sneak attacks. It's not "invisibility" of the Black Globe variety, but it could easily work as "camouflage" to sufficiently blend into the background radiation well enough to make detection challenging ... at which point everything hinges upon crew skills (including command leadership) and morale.

Or to put it another way, it's the difference between submarine (capacitor powered) and surface (fusion powered) warfare, translated from a wet navy context to a space navy context.

Emergency power where the ship can fire everything AND use maximum agility/acceleration.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, with capacitors you are still limited to a maximum power output per combat round of 100% of the power plant's output, regardless of where the power comes from (fusion reactor and/or jump capacitors). If you have a 1000 EP power plant, then your ship has up to 1000 EP available (maximum!) to power everything during each combat round ... regardless of what the mix is between power plant and capacitors.

1000 EP from power plant plus 0 EP from capacitors = allowed
500 EP from power plant plus 500 EP from capacitors = allowed
0 EP from power plant plus 1000 EP from capacitors = allowed

1000 EP from power plant PLUS 1000 EP from capacitors = not allowed

Clear enough?

Not to mention what that does in the realm of smaller vehicle power if you make 1 cubic meter capacitors that retain charge and are toting 17.85 gigawatt-seconds.

You'll need to complain to the management of the Striker design rules about that one.

So, no shortcuts, least not in my universe.

Um ... that's what I said in the first place ...

If someone gets sly with the capacitors, I have a home rule in reserve that says they have to pay up an extra ten percent in power plant tonnage and cost to have the power distribution built in.

Hey, you do you in your campaigns.

 

[Condottiere]

You could deliberately overload the capacitors to self destruct the starship.

Maybe, take another spaceship with you.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Thread Necromancy (I'm going back through my stuff):

The problem you're really having here is that you can only mount 1 hardpoint per 100 tons of ship (LBB2.81 p15). You can't have it both ways where you're both under 200 tons (for crew requirements) and at 200 tons (for hardpoint allocations) at the same time.

Or to put it another way ... that hair don't split that way ... (or at the very least, I don't think it should...)

The point of this is not to have it both ways, but to be able to have it either way -- my focus here is on crew requirements.

With one turret, it's 199.5Td and can be flown by one person (plus maybe a second one as gunner for the first turret -- I'd house-rule that sandcasters can be automated if narrative/game purposes require it).

With two, it's 200Td and requires the full crew (add an engineer and a medic, plus the second gunner; in this case, I wouldn't allow robo-sandcasters).

In other words, the thing making the difference (and forcing the decision as to whether the ship can be flown single-handed) is the second turret. Technically, if it has the second turret (and the extra 1/2 ton that brings it to 200 tons) it always has/had it and it could never have been flown single-handed safely. Alternately, if it doesn't have the second turret it might never have had the second hardpoint, so it could never require more crew than the pilot and an optional gunner. This just allows some flexibility -- it doesn't need to be stated outright which version is in use, and it can be ret-conned if for some reason the PC party using it, changes in size.

Edit: slight edits for clarity.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's like the trick of providing a special 199Td Type A Free Trader for when you only have one or two players in your gaming group.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Ironically, I've been looking at 400 ton standard hulls lately as a J2/2G Far Trader "replacement" option ... because a 200 ton custom hull costs MCr20+2+0.2=22.2 and a 400 ton standard hull costs MCr16+4+0.4=20.4 under LBB2.81 when streamlined and given fuel scoops. The bridge will cost an extra MCr1 (because 400 ton hull instead of 200 tons) ... but even with that added expense you're looking at MCr23.2 vs MCr22.4, so you're still coming out ahead.

LBB2.81 B/B/B drives will cost 25 tons and MCr44 ... while D/D/D drives will cost 45 tons (meaning 5 tons waste space in a standard hull) and MCr88.

When you cost out the entirety of the 400 ton form factor, it ironically winds up being under 2x the cost for 2x the dispacement ... potentially yielding a more favorable revenue tonnage fraction than the 200 ton A2 Far Trader.



Just a thought ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Ironically, I've been looking at 400 ton standard hulls lately as a J2/2G Far Trader "replacement" option ... because a 200 ton custom hull costs MCr20+2+0.2=22.2 and a 400 ton standard hull costs MCr16+4+0.4=20.4 under LBB2.81 when streamlined and given fuel scoops. The bridge will cost an extra MCr1 (because 400 ton hull instead of 200 tons) ... but even with that added expense you're looking at MCr23.2 vs MCr22.4, so you're still coming out ahead.

LBB2.81 B/B/B drives will cost 25 tons and MCr44 ... while D/D/D drives will cost 45 tons (meaning 5 tons waste space in a standard hull) and MCr88.

When you cost out the entirety of the 400 ton form factor, it ironically winds up being under 2x the cost for 2x the dispacement ... potentially yielding a more favorable revenue tonnage fraction than the 200 ton A2 Far Trader.



Just a thought ...

Yeah, the 400Td standard hull is a bargain -- enough so that even with all the wasted space, the Type R is still cheaper per payload ton than a 400Td J1/1G equivalent using a custom hull. The R2 (far fat trader) is indeed a better deal per payload ton than the A2. I'm surprised that they never made the R2 a canon design, rather than implying its existence by having it be the ship that the 400Td standard hull was designed to fit.

They left it as an 'easter egg' hidden in the design rules.

Doesn't do any good for a possible Jump-4 variant, though. A Jump-3 version of the Type S is available using LBB5'81 at TL-13, and it can even use the 100Td Standard Hull if you allow using LBB2 hulls with LBB5 drives (the reverse is explicitly allowed in HG).

 

[infojunky]

Your 200t loophole is invalid.

A turret has no displacement cost in CT LBB2, nor does a hardpoint. It is the fire control that takes up 1 displacement ton. To get two hardpoints you need a 200t hull, not a 199t one.

Considering the liberal rounding that is used in the drive tables and the mid-sized drive requirement for custom hulls, I would allow a second hardpoint on a full as such a 150 ton ship could have two.

Now, also remember the fixed weapons rules allow weapons without a turret.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Considering the liberal rounding that is used in the drive tables and the mid-sized drive requirement for custom hulls, I would allow a second hardpoint on a full as such a 150 ton ship could have two. Now, also remember the fixed weapons rules allow weapons without a turret.

A simple compromise (meets play balance objectives, but not necessarily plausibility): Allow a second turret (or "turret") for tonnages between 100Td steps -- but only a single-weapon turret for tonnages between x01-x50Td, and a two-weapon turret for tonnages between x51-x99Td.

 

[infojunky]

A simple compromise (meets play balance objectives, but not necessarily plausibility): Allow a second turret (or "turret") for tonnages between 100Td steps -- but only a single-weapon turret for tonnages between x01-x50Td, and a two-weapon turret for tonnages between x51-x99Td.

Note when I have used this it is generally to add a hardpoint with fixed weapons. Frequently Combination Missile/Sand Launchers. Note a number of the ship's done by the White Dwarf Traveller authors look to use a variation of this.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Revisiting since I mentioned it in the Deck Plans thread.

The quick and dirty way to do deckplans for this one is to take a canon Type S (Suliman) and just make it longer. Keep the angles of the squished-pyramid shape, but shift the drive bay aft and enlarge it a bit. Fuel goes in the new space (length) you've added in the middle. The front part can be identical since the ST has the same size bridge, same number of staterooms, same cargo bay, and the same Air/Raft -- or at least a place to park one if desired.

It's laid out like that for the convenience of Scout crews who are already familiar with the Type S. (It's also for referees who don't like drawing deck plans... )

Honestly, that wouldn't quite be the optimal layout. I'd probably move the air/raft and cargo hold in toward the centerline, with both dorsal and ventral doors for each. But, sticking with the port and starboard locations saves effort. And, time permitting, I'd probably redraw it from scratch.

 

[Grav_Moped]

And, time permitting, I'd probably redraw it from scratch.

...especially the J4/4G version.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The quick and dirty way to do deckplans for this one is to take a canon Type S (Suliman) and just make it longer. Keep the angles of the squished-pyramid shape, but shift the drive bay aft and enlarge it a bit. Fuel goes in the new space (length) you've added in the middle. The front part can be identical since the ST has the same size bridge, same number of staterooms, same cargo bay, and the same Air/Raft -- or at least a place to park one if desired.

Did some fumbling around before realizing that the square-cube law applies. Thus, to double the volume, multiply the dimensions by the cube root of 2. (no, I am not going to try to type that out -- the best I can manage is 2^1/3 which is equivalent but... yeah.)

Original (I'm using the one in S7: Traders and Gunboats -- I think; grabbed the image off the internet.) is 37m x 24m x 7.5m. Projecting out to where the back corners get clipped off, it'd be 25.14m wide before the cuts (which take out about 1.1% of the volume). Calculated volume of the original is 86.2Td after clipping -- within the 10-20% drafting error margin, but undersized.

2^1/3 = ~1.26 so the Type S shape at "200Td" is then:
47.25m long, 30.24m wide*, 9.45m tall.

This gives a 172.7Td hull after the corner-clips (it's undersized but ok, as was the original).

Basically, you stretch the drive bay by 3 deck squares in length, drag the cargo hold, the air/raft bay, and the landing gear back so they're still flush with the aft of the hull, move the landing gear out one square and add corridors between them and the drive bay to reach cargo and parking. Scale the main hull accordingly.

-------------
*would be 31.67m wide if the back corners weren't clipped off -- this is useful if you want to replicate the math.

 

[Grav_Moped]

2^1/3 = ~1.26 so the Type S shape at "200Td" is then:
47.25m long, 30.24m wide*, 9.45m tall.

This gives a 172.7Td hull after the corner-clips (it's undersized but ok, as was the original).

Basically, you stretch the drive bay by 3 deck squares in length, drag the cargo hold, the air/raft bay, and the landing gear back so they're still flush with the aft of the hull, move the landing gear out one square and add corridors between them and the drive bay to reach cargo and parking. Scale the main hull accordingly.

... And here's that brutally ugly hacked version.
I'm not particularly proud of it, but it kinda works.

Source image credit: GDW.

Keep in mind it's short 10Td fuel by house rule (see most of the first few pages of this thread, if you care). If you want it fully compliant, delete the air/raft, cargo, and one of the forward two staterooms (which don't actually fit inside the hull as drawn but I chose not to fix that). The area on the plans where that stateroom was, is then where the Mod/4 computer goes (it's in an unspecified location, otherwise). There's then 1Td of cargo which can explain the "forward cargo bay" (again, something I didn't fix from the original).

And/or call it 200Td and you can add a second turret to the underside. It then needs an Engineer, a Medic, and two Gunners in addition to the Pilot.